Yes, but remember – Max is the most evilest and immoral and selfish person on the planet, far more so than Patrick. Because saying “no” to Alison when she wants you to risk yourself to save her BFF plus a few thousand lives makes you infinitely worse than helping to prop up terrorist-supporting, fanatically religious, horribly oppressive regimes controlling oil-rich territories. :p

bryan rasmussen

Uhm, is Alison’s world really so closely aligned to our own though?

Izo

My god Arkone. You’re right. *sob*

Izo

So? Put the schematics out on the internet. Let him sue her for giving the world free energy?

Alison, break her arm for putting her petty worries above the future of the planet and all the death that’s caused from a lack of adequate energy, and all the wars caused over oil.

Magma Sam

I don’t think this “arm breaking” joke you keep using fits even in the broadest sense. The entire reason “arm breaking” is a component is because that person wouldn’t do it without the compulsion of violent threats. Paladin, however, is actively pursuing these ends: she just doesn’t have the means. If one of these ideas would work, and the idea occurred to Paladin, she’d just do it.

Izo

She isn’t. I don’t see everyone in the world having unlimited green energy, so she hasn’t done her job. Because she’s afraid of ‘lawsuits.’ And considering Paladin is a super-genius, she’s been wasting the good she can do by futzing around with robots that destroy themselves and motorcycles to give to her crushes instead of to the world.

Alison should tell her to get to work on it, and if she doesn’t, threaten to break her arm. Or is that threat only allowed for rich white men, and not rich black women (or black women who are not rich but, with her intelligence should be able to be rich using a fraction of her superhuman intellect).

Zorae42

Ah yes, because knowledge of robotics and computer programming means you know how to develop cheap, clean energy. That’s why they let pediatrists do open heart surgery, it’s all the same field right?

But hey, super powers right? In that case, who’s to say she didn’t invent clean, cheap energy back while Templar had complete control over her. And now they do own the patent and/or have her under a non-disclosure clause so she can’t release the knowledge.

She may not be solving the world’s energy problem (something she doesn’t have experience in). But she is working on creating robots/ai, which could fundamentally help/change the world depending on where it leads (and she clearly wants to help the world with them unlike someone else).

How could she be rich? She’s under contract with Templar. I assume if she created anything for profit (without their approval) it would violate the contract. No one could legally sell her stuff (or want to considering who owns her contract). That combined with the high cost of lawsuits and high tech R&D, I don’t see how she could possibly be rich.

Arkone Axon

1: Paladin literally just mentioned (casually) how she’s got cheap, clean energy powering that motorcycle. Not to mention that all her robots, and even her suit of powered armor, need SOMETHING to keep them going. And they aren’t exactly spewing up clouds of smoke from their internal combustion engines.

2: The point Izo’s been trying to make is that Paladin could just dismiss whatever happens to her in the future and make all her inventions open source. Even though it would mean possibly being sued to oblivion. But that’s just a minor threat and Paladin’s silly for being afraid of that, and anyway she’s not really afraid because when she explicitly mentioned it she was clearly lying. So she’s being a selfish jerk for not wanting to use her powers to save the world and help countless people, and so Alison should give her a little arm twist until Paladin agrees to do this base level, decent, no-brainer request. And then maybe show up later to offer to do something to make up for the non-torture of this selfish jerk who doesn’t deserve any pity whatsoever.

3: She’s a genius who could build a gambling robot and have it start doing internet trading. And everything she DOES patent Templar has “first rights” to buy up (and for extremely generous amounts of money, which is why Paladin can’t find a judge who’ll agree that the contract is unfair). Which means any time she sees her bank account drop below seven digits, all she has to do is quickly whip up another robotic toy for children or something, and Templar will snatch it right up. (Their standing policy is to buy ALL her patents… she can always make a point of patenting non-essential luxury items with limited military application).

Zorae42

1: ‘Pentalithium Fuel Cell’ could mean anything. Lithium batteries are a thing, but electric vehicles are definitely not ‘clean energy’ as we still use fossil fuel to create our electricity. Her robots could all be running off of electricity, which is not ‘clean energy’

2. “Even though it would mean possibly being sued to oblivion. But that’s just a minor threat and Paladin’s silly for being afraid of that” I’m not sure how being sued into oblivion is a minor threat…. Or were you attempting to be glib since Max was literally faced with a minor threat? Don’t get me wrong, having his abilities exposed to other people would be a major threat for him. But Alison made sure that her actions minimized any possible exposure. Unless you count Alison knowing about it, but that’s no longer a comparable situation/hypothetical action.

But Lisa is helping Alison with Valkyrie, is creating robots/ai which could have an immeasurable positive influence on the world.

3. Dang, I thought I remembered something like that, but when I went through the comics last night I couldn’t find the page (it was very frustrating). Thank you for letting me know I didn’t imagine that. Although her wealth does seem to be a relatively new status for her, since when she first got to the college she needed their grants and assistance in paying her legal fees. And there is a big difference between becoming wealthy and being born into wealth.

“A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction of positively charged hydrogen ions with oxygen or another oxidizing agent.”

In other words, a fuel cell is a power source, not just a battery. So unless the author was just inserting technobabble, then it’s a power source. “Add fuel, have power.”

2: “Max was literally faced with a minor threat.” Thank you for once again emphasizing how twisted the arguments against Max are. The flying brick (who once bit a cop’s gun barrel off and then spat out the bullet before emphasizing that nothing anyone could do would stop her from murdering an entire crowd if she so chose) put him in a painful joint lock, then threatened to murder him if he didn’t do as she demanded. Every bit of that has been repeatedly pointed out as: being multiple felonies, fitting the exact definition of torture, AND the worst possible method (since she’s ensured that he’s no longer available to enhance anyone else, unless she’s prepared to drop everything and go on a Jack Bauer style rampage to track him down and declare, “your life of eternal servitude in accordance with MY ideology begins now!”).

Again: the first biodynamic to learn about his abilities and show up at his doorstep immediately confirmed all his fears by terrorizing and torturing him into using them for her benefit. She decided that he needed to use his powers according to her moral beliefs, and his own issues and concerns should be mocked and dismissed. If that’s a moral thing to do, then you MUST agree that Paladin is being selfish by being unwilling to face multiple lawsuits as a consequence of bringing unlimited cheap energy to the world. After all, if they sued her they’d look hideously bad in court and the lawsuits might not even go anywhere if it could be argued that she acted for the public good. Of course they still might do it just to be jerks…but that’s a minor threat and so she is being EVIL for not dismissing the threat to her own life, liberty, and happiness for the sake of others. At least, according to the same logic that claims that Max is evil for doing the same.

motorfirebox

1. Pentalithium fuel cells are probably clean energy, but they’re not necessarily cheap. After all, there’s only one of her powered armor.

2. She really can’t. Even if she publishes it, it’s still Templar’s patent and Templar can sue the baloney out of anyone who tries to make a profit off of it. And if there’s no profit motive, it’s not going to be produced in quantities great enough to matter.

Arkone Axon

Again: just because Templar sues her, people would still benefit from the cheap plentiful green energy. Also, Izo (who is an attorney) already pointed out that no they don’t have the patent. They won’t have the patent on anything Paladin hasn’t patented… and if she has patented it, then it’s only right that she should “take one for the team” by releasing her invention to the general public.

motorfirebox

I’m not talking about her being sued. I’m talking about anyone who attempts to use it being sued. Say she releases, patent-free, blueprints for a high-capacity battery that can be manufactured with zero carbon footprint or other harmful industrial waste. Templar says “ooh, neat”, patents it, and starts suing anyone who makes and sells them.

The way our patent law works, your ability to patent something is based pretty much entirely on your ability to defend that patent in court. That’s why patent trolling is such a huge industry. If Lisa releases something without patenting it, she just makes it easier for Templar to snap it up.

Arkone Axon

And I respond to your claims (which contradict the statements given by the actual lawyer in this discussion) with the example of Eli Whitney:

He literally went broke trying to enforce his patent rights on the cotton gin. The cotton farmers expressed outrage and self-righteous indignation and produced their own versions in vast quantities.

Also, if Paladin releases those blueprints… especially if they aren’t demonstrably hers… then Templar CAN’T patent it, since they clearly didn’t invent it. You can’t patent a design you found online that someone else uploaded to the entire internet.

motorfirebox

Man, Eli Whitney was a century ago, and he was one guy. He was not a multi-billion dollar corporation with an army of lawyers. Patent law is an entire industry unto itself, these days. Look at Apple vs Samsung. Look at Google suing Uber over Otto.

Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Throw enough lawyers at it, and it becomes almost impossible to say. And even if you manage the impossible, you’ll have to do it all over again in the appeal, and the appeal after that. The legitimacy of the claim doesn’t even really matter all that much. A mom ‘n pop startup isn’t going to have the financial resources to survive a court battle with Templar. They’ll settle long before any ruling comes down. The only cases Templar could conceivably lose would be cases against other multi-billion dollar corporations, which kinda obviates the whole “give it to the people for free” thing.

And Templar has a leg up in this fight (sorry, Lisa) because they’ve got a long history of Lisa working for them. Lisa comes up with something new? Templar files a claim—against her and/or against whoever tries to use it—that her “new” design is actually an iteration of her older work, and therefore falls under the same patent. Again, it doesn’t matter if it’s true. It doesn’t even matter if their case is weak. All that matters is that they pile a mountain of court costs on anyone smaller than them who tries to use Lisa’s unpatented stuff.

This is especially true because Patrick doesn’t actually care all that much about the money to be made off the patents themselves. His goal in pursuing Lisa’s patents isn’t their economic value, it is specifically to prevent them from affecting the world. He doesn’t even have a profit motive to stop him from patent trolling everything Lisa makes—for him, the trolling isn’t a means to an end, it is the end.

Arkone Axon

Um… one: you’re validating the original thrust of Izo’s argument (i.e. the sarcastic observation that Patrick was, is, and continues to be far, far worse than Max, even though fans continue to give Patrick a pass and dismiss Max as the worst villain of the strip to date).

Two: as has been pointed out – repeatedly – this only applies to things Lisa has already patented. If she just releases something and makes it freely available to the public, it becomes like the Franklin Stove, which Ben Franklin refused to patent so that everyone could benefit.

Three: it doesn’t matter if it was a few centuries ago. It’s still established legal precedent. Which is why Templar would essentially be attempting to perform the equivalent of Snapple suing anyone who made homebrewed iced tea in their homes; it wouldn’t work, it would enflame public opinion against them, and it would cause a dramatic crash in their publicly traded stock values.

Four: the whole point of the sarcastic argument about Lisa needing to have her arm twisted to force her to release her designs is that Lisa could indeed be doing more good for the world, but rather than forcing her to act in spite of the potential risks to herself Alison is respecting her right to live her own life as she chooses. Which she failed to do for Max. The original point was about the double standard here.

motorfirebox

I don’t give Patrick a pass.

Your example of Eli Whitney wasn’t legal precedent. Legally, Whitney had the law on his side. The reason he failed to defend his patent was that he didn’t have enough time or money. Templar doesn’t face that shortcoming.

Templar would only be suing ice tea homebrewers if the plans she released could be made at home—something that is so easy to make at home that it would be hard for manufacturers to turn a profit on mass-producing them. There aren’t many products like that. Nearly any useful technology she comes up with is almost certainly going to be made in a factory and sold, in which case Templar can drag the manufacturer to court. Again, this doesn’t require Templar to be right. It merely requires Templar to be able to spend more on lawsuits than the manufacturer.

Honestly, I think that the strongest argument against this idea is that Lisa isn’t doing it already. Everything we’ve seen of her indicates to me that putting powerful technology into the hands of everyone at zero cost is exactly the sort of thing she’d do. So if she’s not doing it, either it hasn’t occurred to her or something is preventing her. Lisa being who she is, it seems unlikely that it hasn’t occurred to her. Whatever that means for Izo’s crusade in defense of Max isn’t really of interest to me. I’m pointing out a flaw in the patent argument.

Arkone Axon

The example of Eli Whitney was of how someone who technically had patent law on his side still failed to enforce said patent. And as for Templar having unlimited oodles and oodles of wealth… look at what happens to corporations that get overly aggressive in protecting their copyrights/patents. They lose a LOT of money. They lose money spent on the legal fees. They lose money spent on lost profits because they’ve driven customers away. They lose money when their stock prices plummet. The only way they can stay in business while continuing to aggressively be jerks to customers is if they have a monopoly over them, the way Comcast does in too many places.

And I agree that something is preventing Lisa from doing it. Namely: she doesn’t want to ruin her life over this and instead wants to find a solution that won’t force her to risk everything. I agree with her on that. I support her on that. I simply feel the same applies to everyone, not just people the protagonist happens to personally like.

Izo

I’m just letting Arkone’s posts stand on their own at this point against what Motorfirebox is saying, because Arkone is saying what I’d be saying and motor’s comments of ‘hey man, that was 2 centuries ago’ makes my brain hurt.

Also there’s no flaw in my patent argument. Motor just doesn’t seem to understand even the basics of patent law, the history of people getting or enforcing patents, or how a patent works.

motorfirebox

Again, Patrick doesn’t care a whole lot about profit motive in this instance. His explicit goal is to prevent Lisa’s inventions from getting out there. As far as cost, in many cases these kinds of lawsuits never go to court. Templar may not be able to afford a hojillion lawsuits, but mom ‘n pop companies can’t afford ONE lawsuit. As a (very) small business owner myself, if Microsoft filed a lawsuit against my business, I’d start trying to settle immediately. I’d stop doing whatever they told me to stop doing. Wouldn’t matter what the claim was, because I can’t afford to win the first court case, much less the appeals.

Izo

“Also, if Paladin releases those blueprints… especially if they aren’t demonstrably hers… then Templar CAN’T patent it, since they clearly didn’t invent it. You can’t patent a design you found online that someone else uploaded to the entire internet.”

I’m astounded how some people are having trouble with this basic concept. Yes thank you. 🙂

(I know I was just going to let Arkone’s post stand on their own but I just needed to emphasize this considering how stubborn motor and zorae are being about this basic idea. It’s… so… basic. Last post from me on this since it’s all just rehashing the same very general set of sentences now that they’re just feigning ignorance about.)

Izo

“I’m not talking about her being sued. I’m talking about anyone who attempts to use it being sued.”

They actually can’t sue a person for using a former trade secret. If you found out the recipe for Coca Cola or the Colonel’s Secret Blend of Herbs and Spices, and started selling soda or chicken, Coca Cola and KFC wouldn’t be able to sue you.

Actually, if it’s open to the public, Templar CAN’T patent it. You can only patent something that you invented. If Elon Musk invents something, then tells the world how to make it for free, Joe Shmoe can’t say ‘Hey, lookit that. I’mma gonna patent it!’ The USPTO will say ‘uh… no.’

“The way our patent law works, your ability to patent something is based pretty much entirely on your ability to defend that patent in court.”

Seriously no, that’s not how patent law works, and in this case this isn’t me just using google or a general opinion. You clearly don’t know anything about how intellectual property works – especially not patent law. I do this for a living. Your ability to patent something is based on proving that you invented it, and that the work is useful, novel, and non-obvious. It’s NOT about ‘Let me just try to patent stuff that I clearly have no right to patent, and just defend against it. It’s a ‘I have to prove this to you’ in regards to the USPTO, not a ‘Prove me wrong’ to the USPTO.

“That’s why patent trolling is such a huge industry.”

For the love of god, that’s not even what patent trolling is. Patent trolling is when the bona fide patent holder sues OTHER people far beyond the patent’s actual value. It’s not about looking at stuff that’s already available in the public sphere and patenting THAT stuff.

“If Lisa releases something without patenting it, she just makes it easier for Templar to snap it up.”

What the… no! That’s not how patents work! If it’s already in the public sphere, they can’t ‘snap it up.’ That’s the point! There’s already evidence then that they did not invent the thing that they’re trying to patent!

I’m… I’m not sure how I can make this more clear. You can’t patent something that you did not yourself invent or significantly improve upon to the point where it’s novel, useful, and non-obvious.

Btw, Arkone give a WONDERFUL example with Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. Another example would be the person who created the ferrule (the metal band that attaches an eraser to the pencil).

motorfirebox

“You can’t patent something that you did not yourself invent or significantly improve upon to the point where it’s novel, useful, and non-obvious.”

You actually can. Obtaining a patent is insanely simple. People own patents for the concept of networking. One guy owned a patent for podcasting. The only reason that all podcasters don’t have to pay that guy royalties is, that guy lost the court battle defending his patent. And, like Eli Whitney, that was one guy by himself. It was not a multi-billion dollar corporation with an army of lawyers.

Again, this important: Templar DOES NOT HAVE TO WIN these lawsuits. In many cases, they just have to file them or threaten to file them. Smaller companies can’t win these lawsuits because they don’t have the money to fight them in court. Larger companies probably could, but that goes against the whole “give it to the people for free” thing anyway.

2: I’ve got a number of copyrights in my own name, and I’ve had to deal with other people’s copyrights as well. And setting aside the fact of “fair use” meaning that I can reference a name brand in my own work without being sued for it, setting aside the fact that suing everyone who tries to reproduce your trade secrets in their own home is a perfect way to piss off all your customers and lose a lot of business, there’s the fact that if you go suing everyone in sight, the result is COUNTERSUITS for malicious litigation, and your attorneys getting disbarred for abusing the law (also known as “why Fred Phelps had to give up law and become a hatemongering preacher”).

3: See 1. You don’t even have the basic information, just your own opinion followed by increasingly twisted arguments to support it. I’ve actually seen someone like you in a courtroom. That person was asked by the judge point blank, “WHAT exactly are you suing for?” Their response was to glare at the judge incredulously, shocked that it wasn’t completely self evident, and then wave dramatically at myself and my coauthor and declare, “…THIS!”

(Spoiler: that case ended with the judge telling the plaintiff that he would be sending his verdict in the mail, and the bailiffs asking us to remain in the courtroom until the crazy person had exited the courthouse just to avoid trouble)

Izo

Just mentioning here also…. copyrights and patents are different things entirely. Motorfirebox is trying to switch back and forth for some reason, and amazingly he’s being wrong about BOTH legal terms anyway 🙂

Izo

“You actually can.”

No. You can’t. What you quoted me saying is literally the FIRST sentence in ANY patent law class. It’s the basis for all patent law.

“Obtaining a patent is insanely simple.”

I’m willing to bet you’ve never applied for a patent.

“People own patents for the concept of networking.”

Uh…. you really need to read up on what you’re talking about. There’s no patent for the ‘concept’ of networking. Perhaps you’re talking about US 5594910 A, the patent for an interactive computer network and method of operation. Which was an improvement on multiple earlier patents, starting in 1988 (Patent 219931…. and back then networking multiple computers together WAS novel, non-obvious, and unique).

“One guy owned a patent for podcasting”

Actually no again. That patent was knocked out as invalid in most of the parts of the patent (which was actually patented back in 1996, which again was back when podcasts were novel, unique, and non-obvious – and they still lost when they tried to stretch it beyond the Apple lawsuit).

You really need to stop arguing this. You’re incredibly wrong on every element about which you’re arguing.

“The only reason that all podcasters don’t have to pay that guy royalties is, that guy lost the court battle defending his patent.”

“And, like Eli Whitney, that was one guy by himself. It was not a multi-billion dollar corporation with an army of lawyers.”

Um… actually it was a company called Personal Audio LLC, which had millions of dollars at its disposal, and was lost lawsuits against small companies. When Personal Audio had sued Adam Corolla, the patent holder had to drop the lawsuit because they were losing – and Adam Corolla didn’t spend money – the defense was from a crowdfunding site (in the amount of $475,000). Please get your facts straight.

“Again, this important: Templar DOES NOT HAVE TO WIN these lawsuits.”

The lawsuit would consist of a summary judgment against them, period. If they do not HAVE a valid patent to begin with, they can’t GET a patent with which to sue, which ironically is different than the podcast example you’re giving, where the company DID have a valid patent, and STILL LOST. BADLY.

“Smaller companies can’t win these lawsuits because they don’t have the money to fight them in court.”

Oh for crying out loud. Personal Audio LLC, BEFORE it was a major multi-million dollar LLC, won a lawsuit against APPLE. Back when it had a VALID patent. Then when Personal Audio sued Adam Corolla, they LOST from a defense funded by a crowdfunding site. Then thet lost against a non-profit digital rights group that was NOT a multi-billion or even multi-million dollar company, which sued PERSONAL AUDIO LLC, and they won, removing vital parts of the patent that made the patent useless. It cost Personal Audio millions. And this was a company that had a VALID patent at one point, unlike what Templar would have.

“Larger companies probably could, but that goes against the whole “give it to the people for free” thing anyway.”

You are honestly pulling this stuff out of thin air. Even your own not-on-point example actually invalidates your entire argument.

“So, yes, Coke could in fact sue you for copyright infringement if you managed to independently reproduce their secret formula.”

No, they can’t.
1) Copyrights are not patents. Copyrights are totally different from patents, and the secret formula is not patented anyway. It’s a trade secret. Trade secrets are also different than patents. With a patent, it’s already available to the public because the government gives the patent-holder a ‘limited time’ monopoly. A trademark has no limits on how long they can hold it. It just stops being theirs once the secret is out. Then ANYONE can copy it, and they can’t be sued for it.

Again, this is BASIC intellectual property law.

“You can file a lawsuit for anything against anyone.”

Uh…..you’ve never filed a lawsuit before, have you? I’m assuming you don’t know what a summary judgment is, or what a motion to dismiss is? Literally the simplest, quickest way to stop a frivolous lawsuit, especially when based on something which is on its face faulty. It costs about $300-$600 for a lawyer to file the motion, depending on where you live and how much experience the lawyer has. Or you can do it on your own. Costs about $50 for the filing fee for the motion, at least in my state.

“You could file a lawsuit against me for being wrong on the Internet.”

Uh… no I can’t. I would need to prove damages.

“Your ability to win that lawsuit is basically zero, of course, but you could probably force me to hire a lawyer.”

I definitely could not force you to hire a lawyer to defend against something like that. I’d most likely get berated by the judge if the judge even looks at it and the clerk doesn’t toss it.

There’s no stealing! It’s a trade secret! The point of a trade secret is once it’s no longer a secret, there’s nothing!

Not to mention Coca Cola’s trade secret DID become public back in 2011. By a broadcast on NPR called ‘This American Life.’ And Coca Cola was NOT able to sue. They just tried to broadcast that it was NOT the formula. Because that’s the only way to defend the trade secret – to deny that the secret was figured out.

Here’s the recipe btw, if anyone wants to start up a cola company. I’ll represent you if Coca Cola tries to sue. I’ll do it pro bono. Might be hard to start it up since the actual formula DOES use the coca leaf, which is heavily regulated and Coca Cola has a special arrangement (legally) with the DEA which permits the importation of the leaves.

A mixture of orange oil, lemon oil, neroli oil, nutmeg oil, cinnamon oil, coriander oil and alcohol provides the flavor base for a cola beverage. In order to actually make cola, lime juice, vanilla, caffeine and coca leaves are necessary.

“But if you’re a tiny soda startup that’s still running a negative profit margin?
You’re not going to go to court. You’re going to try to settle on whatever terms Coke gives you that seem less expensive than a court battle.”

Uh…. no. Just… no. Read above.

“And if you do decide to go to court, you go bankrupt long before a verdict comes down.”

Yeah those motions to dismiss sure cause a lot of bankruptcies. Tell me the truth, you’ve never been involved in any litigation ever, right?

“This isn’t even theory.”

Correct, it’s not a theory. A theory means your hypothesis would have been tested and would be at least plausible.

“Lisa’s a rich genius, so she won that battle.”

1) Actually it would be because she’d have proved the armor existed before Templar’s patent, assuming she did not sell her patent for the armor to Templar.

2) Again, you do realize that the point of a patent is that patents run out, then anyone can make it right?

3) Once you add to an existing patent, you can patent THAT if it’s novel, unique, and non-obvious. Obviously Templar isn’t patenting everything that PALADIN makes. Because they aren’t the ones creating anything.

“I’m not a rich genius, myself. I’d have settled.”

You don’t need to be a genius. You need a first year attorney who took one course in patent law and passed the patent bar.

Seriously, almost everything you’ve said is wildly inaccurate.

motorfirebox

Okay, buddy. It’s not like this is something that actually happens in real life every day. It’s not like large corporations are using patent law, right now, in real life, to strangle small companies and/or force them to sell.

Izo

“Okay, buddy. It’s not like this is something that actually happens in real life every day.”

Did you miss the part where I explained to you what you need to actually do to sue over a patent? Most importantly …. having a valid patent to sue over? What do I know though.

Oh wait, I’m an attorney who passed the patent bar (and has been practicing primarily patent law – and copyright and trademark law which is totally different, though you seem to not realize this – so I have a fairly good experience dealing with what is involved in the USPTO and lawsuits surrounding patent violations), but I would only really need to have taken a single course in law school to know this stuff since you’re somehow arguing against the absolute basics of patent law. Also, you don’t seem to know how corporations DO use patents, or even the history of the examples you gave.

If Microsoft sues you for… what? Huh? Are you under the belief that Microsoft has gotten as powerful as it was because of patent lawsuits? That must be why Microsoft Explorer is the most widely used web browser. Oh wait, it isn’t. No, Microsoft doesn’t use patent law to be powerful. It uses ‘BUYING THE COMPETITORS’ and making deals with computer companies to bundle their software with the computer company hardware.

But no, it’s ‘ermergerd, big corporations iz evul!’ Did you miss the part where, in the example you gave, a small LLC sued APPLE over their patent…. got $8 million, then when they sued a single person on a podcast, they were losing so badly that they voluntarily stopped the lawsuit… then a non-profit group which was NOT a multi-million dollar megacorporation sued the multi-million dollar patent-holder and gutted their patent?

Nah you must have glossed over that part 🙂

motorfirebox

Whether or not your patent is valid is something that is decided in court. The US Patent Office invalidated parts of Personal Audio’s podcast patent as the result of a lawsuit. And in point of fact, Personal Audio is (as of Dec 2016, at any rate, I haven’t seen anything more recent) appealing that decision.

I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that only large corporations benefit from patent law. I’ve stuck to talking about large corporations because Templar is a large corporation.

At any rate, it’s become clear that you’re too mindlessly combative for debate to be worthwhile. Have a nice life.

Izo

“Whether or not your patent is valid is something that is decided in court.”

*rubs her temples* Actually it’s the USPTO that decides if a patent is valid or not based on your patent application. The courts come in later during patent challenges. The courts will also not allow a company to sue someone over violating a patent if they don’t hold the patent in the first place. There would be no standing. You need to either own the patent or be substantially directly harmed by it to have standing. Please get at least one thing right about my profession.

Your last two posts have literally used large corporations as the example, even while your real life example shows exactly the opposite happening.

“I’ve stuck to talking about large corporations because Templar is a large corporation.”

And yet they can’t defend a patent which they don’t own. And you STILL don’t seem to understand the difference between a trade secret and a patent, or how you can’t sue for a patent that you literally don’t own, or how you can’t take something in the public domain and use THAT as a source for a patent.

“At any rate, it’s become clear that you’re too mindlessly combative for debate to be worthwhile.”

Because I actually understand patent law and have kept correcting you on what you write? That’s ‘mindlessly combative?’ Look, don’t take it from me. Read a book on patent law. Pretty much ANY textbook on it. The basic principles of Patent law hasnt changed much.

You just seem to ignore anything that goes against your worldview, regardless of the law in favor of some dystopian evil corporation world out of Robocop or Blade Runner.

Arkone Axon

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

This is hilarious! Seriously, your post is literally making me laugh as I sit here and read it! Zorae proudly declaring himself as a torture apologist is annoying, but this was just silly!

An attorney, who is an expert on the subject you are arguing, has repeatedly pointed out how incorrect you are about every single bit of this. Your response is to not only go back to your base stance with a “your logic and facts mean nothing to me because I am right!” but you go on to dismiss the actual expert as “too mindlessly combative.” I’m going to have to remember this one. Whenever you post, I’m going to have to remember just how ridiculous you are! :p

motorfirebox

*shrug* Be my guest. I’ve already blocked the other guy; if you, like him, are the sort who winds themselves up over internet arguments and turns them into personal vendettas, I’ll just go ahead and block you as well. Have a nice life.

Arkone Axon

Oh, you mean you blocked the (female) lawyer for pointing out your numerous errors, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in a discussion regarding… the law? Yes, yes. Have a nice life. Go ahead and think that you’re being mature and refusing to sink to our level. After all, true wisdom such as an infallible being like yourself possesses need not concern itself with contradictory reality.

Izo

“Ah yes, because knowledge of robotics and computer programming means you know how to develop cheap, clean energy. That’s why they let pediatrists do open heart surgery, it’s all the same field right?”

Well apparently punching people hard means you know how putting experimental organs in people on a mass scale will work out, so why not? At least here, you have actual EVIDENCE that she can make such a device. And apparently, as you will see in the next comic…. SHE HAS TONS OF THEM. WHICH SHE KEEPS IMPROVING EVEN MORE ON BUT HAS NEVER BOTHERED TO PUT IT INTO THE PUBLIC SPHERE.

“But hey, super powers right? In that case, who’s to say she didn’t invent clean, cheap energy back while Templar had complete control over her.”

She apparently keeps improving on the technology. New improvements = new patentable technology = not under the old patent = put it on the internet and let anyone who wants to use it. Patents won’t apply. And lets say they do. Who’s gonna force her? Alison, get to armbreaking anyone who forces Paladin not to give clean energy to the world.

I love how you bend over backwards to defend Paladin not giving free energy to the world because on the off chance that she might get sued by a company run by a terrorist who desperately wants Alison on his side in the first place to the point where he gave her a $25 million check, but with Max, who has valid reasons for his life being in jeopardy if he does what she said, it’s ‘F*** Max, he’s a rich white male’ – such hypocrisy on your part 🙂 I guess you can only force someone if you don’t like them. And if they’re a rich white male. It’s delicious hypocrisy from you, really.

“And now they do own the patent and/or have her under a non-disclosure clause so she can’t release the knowledge?”

Lets assume your statement is true, despite how a first year law student who’s taken introduction to intellectual property law could destroy your idea. Which do you consider more important, saving billions of lives and fundamentally changing the planet, not to mention saving it from man-made climate change, or getting into a lawsuit by a company of whom Alison has major pull over the founder. Hmm…. decisions decisions. Her life isnt even in danger, mind you. Not even by a stretch of the imagination, unlike how Max’s was. No, if she wants to protect herself from the stress of a lawsuit by not giving free, clean energy to the world, Alison should start forcing her to do so by telling her she will break her arm and murder her. It’s the right thing to do, since it will guaranteed save billions of lives and the planet itself. Cmon, look, I’m all utilitarian now! People here like utilitarianism, right? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one? Real Star Trek philosophizing going on here.

“How could she be rich? She’s under contract with Templar. ”

I guess all that money she’s wasting on robots that tell bad jokes then destroy themselves makes me think she has money to waste. Especially since she has ‘tons’ of those types of motorcycles, and the cost of leaking the schematics on the internet with some of the improvements she comes up with on apparently a daily basis is approximately nothing.

“I assume if she created anything for profit (without their approval) it would violate the contract.”
Then she shouldnt try to make a profit out of giving the world free energy. Take an Elon Musk approach to it. Give it away for free. There. No profit. It’s for the good of the world, Zorae!

“No one could legally buy/produce/sell the stuff she invents (or want to considering who owns her contract)”

What, you’re a capitalist now? Give the schematics away for free.

“That combined with the high cost of lawsuits”

I hear that Alison has a solution for dealing with legal arguments. It’s called ‘I will break your f**king arm and murder you and dump you in the ocean if you tell me no, and no one will be able to stop me.’ Clearly she took ADVANCED Intellectual Property law. You don’t learn that until the second year of law school.

“and high tech R&D,”
She already made the motorcycle and engine and power cell. R&D is done with that. Plus she can shift her future R&D that she’s using to build an artificial slave race that self-pummels itself after making bad jokes and use it on project ‘stop energy pollution forever.’

“I don’t see how she could possibly be rich.”
I guess those robots she builds are made of paper mache?

Arkone Axon

The reason Izo won’t shut up about the arm breaking is because of all the people who keep saying “fuck Max.” As in, that’s a direct quote. “Seriously, fuck Max.” They all agree he’s a horrible person and his fears and personal issues are completely irrelevant and Alison should stop feeling bad about giving him a fraction of what he deserved.

So Izo’s carrying it a bit farther than I would, and I disagree that Alison is evil so much as someone who has just learned she paved her own road to hell with all those good intentions of hers… but otherwise I’m entirely in agreement with Izo. Keep pointing out all these other characters who either did genuinely evil and bad things, or who could be doing more if a flying brick decided “MY ideological beliefs give me the right to force you to do what I think will help others! Even your tears are an insult, how DARE you feel bad about what I’m doing to you when others are suffering?”

Izo

Yep. Everything you just said. Yep.

Magma Sam

Personally, I’ve gotta disagree on that. This isn’t “We disagree on how to save the world, that means I’m right, RAURGH!”, this was him saying “I would be willing to see ten thousand people horribly die in agony, for the *solitary* purpose of making you suffer.”. Sure, she could easily slide to the former, if she weren’t careful or self aware. However, I feel a key component of that entire event was the whole “these other people just matter that little to me” angle Max had going on.

No, Max isn’t evil, he’s just apathetic to a high degree with extensively underdeveloped empathy (which isn’t necessarily his fault). Max had a fundamentally flawed vision of Alison, he genuinely thought ‘she always won’, and ‘has never suffered loss’. Yes, Max has valid fears and concerns, but if Max’s attitude had been “I’d like to, but…” then maybe Alison wouldn’t have been so insulted she could have *heard* them.

Arkone Axon

Except that (as has been pointed out repeatedly), Max never said “I would be willing to see ten thousand people horribly die in agony, for the *solitary* purpose of making you suffer.” Go back to the actual page, and you will see that his actual declaration was “I want you out of here because you are a horrible person and I want nothing to do with you. I will always say no to you, JUST TO YOU. Someone else might be able to convince me to say yes, BUT NEVER YOU, because you are that unpleasant towards me.”

No, Max isn’t “apathetic,” he’s frightened of… violent biodynamics entering his home without his consent, declaring “my cause is just and my needs outweigh your rights!” and then torturing him and doing “whatever it takes” to get him to use his powers. Which Alison proved he was completely justified in fearing.

Stormy9

I think that assumes that the world given clean renewable energy would immediately invest in it, build infrastructure to support it etc. when the reality is that so many corporations have a vested interest in draining every last drop of fossil fuels they can get that even though there are already thousands of ways we could potentially change our systems to be more sustainable we have to (and are) fighting corporations and governments the entire way. AKA Alison needs to go threaten some CEO’s with arm breaking and whatnot.

Izo

“I think that assumes that the world given clean renewable energy would immediately invest in it, build infrastructure to support it etc.”

Break Patrick’s arm if he doesn’t give her another $25 million dollar check to invest in this. Plus just put the schematics on how to build it on the internet so ANYONE can build it!

Make more excuses – go on 🙂

“when the reality is”

I suspect your idea of reality isn’t the same as reality’s sense of reality…. 🙂

“that so many corporations have a vested interest in draining every last drop of fossil fuels they can get that even though there are already thousands of ways we could potentially change our systems”

If there were profitable ways to create alternative energy, a company would make money off of it. The problem with ‘green’ energy is they are currently NOT profitable. But Paladin could make it profitable. She’s not. She needs an arm broken if she doesn’t start getting that invention out to the public pronto.

“to be more sustainable we have to (and are) fighting corporations and governments the entire way.”

The best way to fight an oil corporation is to make a profitable form of renewable energy, since that will force them to either make other profitable forms of renewable energy to compete. Since that’s what capitalism is about. And Paladin seems capable of building such an engine. Hell she probably can build one which works on water, at a cheap enough price to make current gas-based engines go out of business (as opposed to current hydro-cells which are expensive and inefficient in comparison to gas-run engines). But she isn’t putting out for the world to use. Boooooo. 🙂

I wanna see some arm breakage. Pretend Paladin is Max. Or just any rich white male, since all rich white men are evil, so I’m told. /s

Tsapki

Regarding anyone building the bike, you make it sound like someone can find all the pieces they need at their local city dump. Chances are most of these things need to be made in a lab by someone with Paladin’s approximate skill level, aka machine empath.

As for getting the invention out to the public, what makes you believe Templar won’t simply put their legal division to work suing everyone who even tries to make bike that bares even a passing resemblance to one that they legally own the blueprints to? They don’t even need to win the suit, just drag the people into court and ruin them with court costs and leave them penniless as a warning to anyone who thinks they can just use THEIR technology without their consent. The only likely chance is if another company gets a hold of them, and chances are they aren’t going to use the technology to save mankind unless it comes with a big fat price tag they can clip onto it.

Also, there are in fact profitable alternative energy sources being used in many places. But as mentioned, the petrol people currently in the global energy market have no interest in letting others share the space there. Quite a few companies actually actively block legislation that would fund research into improving and expanding other energy alternatives. Meanwhile the system is set up to curry favor to the petrol industry, giving them huge tax breaks to prop them up because they are the only game in town. I mean look at the big sob story being made about how environmental regulations are ‘killing’ the coal industry. They aren’t, the fact that coal mining isn’t as efficient, safe or profitable as other energy sources is killing it, but goodness knows we can’t just turn away from a business that invested so much in an outdated and hazardous energy source. It’s too big to fail.

Izo

“Regarding anyone building the bike, you make it sound like someone can find all the pieces they need at their local city dump”

No, but if you give the schematics for free, people will invest in building it. People like making money, especially after the expensive part – Research and Development – has already been done. And since she’s superhumanly smart, she did her R&D for a lot less than another company would have had to spend. And since the schematics would be available for all, MANY people would do this. Making the engines cheaper because of competition.

“As for getting the invention out to the public, what makes you believe Templar won’t simply put their legal division to work suing everyone who even tries to make bike that bares even a passing resemblance to one that they legally own the blueprints to?”

Because I’m an attorney, and I know patent law. And once it’s out, they can’t do anything about it. And even if it HAD been patented (which it wasn’t), patents have a limited lifepsan before anyone can use it, and when its patented, the schematics would be available to all already. That’s part of what’s required to patent it – filing EVERYTHING about it with the USPTO. If it wasn’t patented by them, which it wasn’t, then it’s a trade secret. Like the coca cola secret recipe, or the Colonel’s secret blend of herbs and spices. And a trade secret is only usable by the creator or owner of the trade secret for as long as it’s a secret. They can’t sue anyone who makes a bike that bares a resemblance. They can’t sue anyone about anything, in fact. It’s the same as if Paladin gave a bike to every corporation as she did to Feral.

“They don’t even need to win the suit, just drag the people into court and ruin them with court costs and leave them penniless as a warning to anyone who thinks they can just use THEIR technology without their consent. ”

1) They can’t sue. They wouldn’t even have standing. There’s no patent and a trade secret is only good as long as it’s a secret.

2) Lets assume that patent law was totally different than it is, and for some reason, they were allowed to sue. Which they aren’t because it would be thrown out of court. They’d be having to sue EVERY single company who would be building it, many of which would likely be as well-funded as Templar, especially Templar’s competitors…. and they’d be losing every single lawsuit as it was. Meanwhile, Templar would be losing money hand over fist in their legal costs for no benefit. Hope they don’t have shareholders because the shareholders would be suing Templar as well in derivative lawsuits for the waste. Even if they win those lawsuits (which is a toss-up), it’s a losing proposition for Templar.

“The only likely chance is if another company gets a hold of them, and chances are they aren’t going to use the technology to save mankind unless it comes with a big fat price tag they can clip onto it.”

Yeah, why would another company want to build a clean-burning engine which would allow them to get a massive untapped market and make billions of dollars in the process. Companies don’t like money, anyway…. right?

“Also, there are in fact profitable alternative energy sources being used in many places.”

Actually there aren’t. Wind and solar are massively inefficient (for now) compared to gas and coal (the only clean-burning fuel that IS cost effective is nuclear, and that has its own problems as we know, and natural gas, but then you have to deal with fracking if you want cost-effectiveness, and it still doesn’t help with vehicles). Electricity still is based on electrical plants, which mostly is still based on coal-burning. Hydrogen fuel cells wind up actually creating more pollution in its creation than the amount that it helps (for NOW) and would require a retrofit of every gas station in the country (or planet) anyway. None of which anyone is willing to pay for right now.

Not to mention it’s FAR more expensive than a gas guzzler, because there’s not a lot of competition to lower the price. The least expensive options tend to be the hybrids, which are hybrids because they’re a combination of green AND standard fuel.

“But as mentioned, the petrol people currently in the global energy market have no interest in letting others share the space there.”

It honestly has nothing to do with the petrol companies. If the petrol companies could create an affordable, cost-effective green energy source, they would. They’re not Captain Planet villains. They want to make a profit. If green energy was profitable for them, or if others could make it profitable and they had to compete with those people, they’d go after it like lemmings. It’s not (yet), so they don’t (yet).

“Quite a few companies actually actively block legislation that would fund research into improving and expanding other energy alternatives.”

Uh… such as? Plus just have Alison break their arms too.

Arm breaking policy 101 for all.

“Meanwhile the system is set up to curry favor to the petrol industry, giving them huge tax breaks to prop them up because they are the only game in town.”

So make them not the only game in town by making the schematics for a renewable fuel source for all. Why would you think the government CAN stop that? Not unless you let government control the means of production, like in a socialist country.

” I mean look at the big sob story being made about how environmental regulations are ‘killing’ the coal industry”

Actually, the thing that hurts the coal industry the most is stuff like natural gas – ie, from fracking. Environmentalists don’t like that either though. Electrical cars also increase coal-burning, because that’s where the electricity comes from. Plants that generate from burning coal (most electricity is NOT from hydro or solar or wind because it’s massively inefficient for most of those production methods, other than hydro, which is limited in scope because of the dams needed).

“the fact that coal mining isn’t as efficient, safe or profitable as other energy sources is killing it”
Actually, coal is VERY efficient and profitable. It’s just not safe and is a big polluter, even though clean coal is better than it used to be.

And again, the number one thing that limits coal and petrol? Natural gas. Which requires fracking to make cost-effective, and that’s still not very useful for cars (yet),although it’s very useful for heating homes and providing electricity.

“but goodness knows we can’t just turn away from a business that invested so much in an outdated and hazardous energy source. It’s too big to fail.”

Nothing is too big to fail unless government props it up.

Get some more arm breaking in there. Start with Paladin if she doesn’t start making her inventions public. See if Templar comes after her after they’re trying to fund Alison with millions of dollars. And risk more arm-breaking.

Nuclear Catsplosion

Izo, the comic has explicitly stated that templar owns everything that Lisa (paladin) creates, so they would almost certainly have the right to sue anybody attempting to recreate it. Also your argument about nonrenewable power doesn’t seem to take into account how oil companies (A) aren’t going to use renewable power because it not AS profitable, although it does turn a profit, and (B) actively impede any smaller companies from trying to make a profit by bribing politicians and viciously undercutting any startups before they can grow.
Your comment “nothing is too big to fail…” is confusing as well, since it doesn’t mean the company can’t fail, but rather that it can crash the economy if it does.
Lastly, while arm breaking is a great problem solver, the number of arms alison would need to break probably wouldn’t be as cost effective as coal. 😀

Izo

“Izo, the comic has explicitly stated that templar owns everything that Lisa (paladin) creates, so they would almost certainly have the right to sue anybody attempting to recreate it.”

You literally can NOT protect an invention from being copied WITHOUT having a patent on that invention (or keeping it a trade secret). So no, they would certainly NOT have the right to sue anyone attempting to create it. They can only sue people who violate a patent. This is the absolute basics of patent law. It’s why people patent stuff in the first place. So that other people can’t use their inventions without getting sued. (this part is not even me being sarcastic – this is what you’d learn in any class on intellectual property and patent law).

“Also your argument about nonrenewable power doesn’t seem to take into account how oil companies (A) aren’t going to use renewable power because it not AS profitable,”

Yes, so if she makes/made a renewable power source which IS as profitable, then they will use it. Because they like to make money. They don’t use renewable power like solar and wind and non-hybrid fuel cells right now simply because it won’t make money, because the technologies are inefficient, expensive, and often as (or more) polluting than the original dirty energy means…. which defeats the entire purpose of it PLUS denies them a profit motive.

“although it does turn a profit,”

It really doesn’t. Most renewable power, with the exception of nuclear (which has its own dangers) and natural gas (which environmentalists dont like because of fracking and shale), does not make a profit (yet).

“and (B) actively impede any smaller companies from trying to make a profit”

1) why would you care if a big company or small company produces the renewable power if it’s cheaper and cleaner than existing power sources?

2) They actively impede other big companies as well. That’s how capitalism works. You want companies fighting each other, because the consumer wins then. You do not want them colluding with each other. And if the schematics are out there for EVERYONE, not sure how any company will prevent all those people from making the engines, or someone with enough means to mass produce them.

“by bribing politicians”

Have Alison break their arms.

Also, what exactly are they bribing politicians to do? To make it harder to start up a company? So we vote in people who will remove regulations instead. But that would probably mean more Libertarian in government.:)

“and viciously undercutting any startups before they can grow.”

Undercutting…. how? I need examples 🙂

“Your comment “nothing is too big to fail…” is confusing as well, ”

No, it’s not confusing at all. It means you let the free market decide which companies succeed and which fail. Without having the government prop certain companies up.

With a healthy dose of Alison arm-breaking political discourse.

“since it doesn’t mean the company can’t fail, but rather that it can crash the economy if it does.”

The only thing that can make an economy crash is when a government forces a private company to be unable to fail, so that the government gets more and more dependent on that private corporation. I prefer the invisible hand of the free market system.

Or we can just do the visible hand of Alison breaking other people’s arms.

“Lastly, while arm breaking is a great problem solver, the number of arms alison would need to break probably wouldn’t be as cost effective as coal. :D”

Look, you people have swayed me to an arm-breaking for the greater good economy (/s), and now you’re telling me you prefer coal because it gets in the way of shipping the adorable biodynamics a little? I’m shocked, I say. Shocked.

Nuclear Catsplosion

Hey Izo, glad to see your reply. I’ve not had much experience with online debate, so let me clarify some things i think i didn’t express well. I’ll assume ( I hope not wrongly) that we can stick to the same points of contention, without restating too much.

*Inhales deeply*
My first comment about templar owning the rights is that they probably have a team of dedicated lackeys documenting everything paladin creates, since, according to the contract she has with templar. Those people likely go out and immediately patent, copyright, trademark, etc. any and all unique inventions of their most profitable resource. If that doesn’t happen, i think templar has horrible business sense.
For renewable sources in general, i think we can agree that, even if they were to make some money, renewable energy wouldn’t realistically make enough to tempt companies not dedicated to environmental protection. Those companies are only interested in making the most money at all possible, hence the term “black gold”, since it required relatively little in terms of refinement before sale.
Also one prime example of major companies not only forgoing competition, but practically helping each other to gain effective monopolies, are internet companies. You can find the details yourself, but there’s almost no competition, and therefore they don’t need to improve, but they will certainly try anything they can to stop smaller internet startups from gaining a foothold, because [ the big companies ] know they themselves provide cruddy service. (Alison should definitely break their arms)

Lastly, because i want to hear your response, what i was talking about “too big to fail” is that, primarily, when the banks crashed in 2008, the government, which had beforehand been leaving the banks mostly to themselves, had to step in and bail them out, because the banks put themselves in the position of nearly going bankrupt through bad practices.

Excitedly waiting your lovely response,
Nuclear Catsplosion

Izo

“My first comment about templar owning the rights is that they probably have a team of dedicated lackeys documenting everything paladin creates, since, according to the contract she has with templar.”

It literally doesn’t matter – until something is patented, it has no protection from being duplicated by other people, unless it’s a trade secret, in which case it needs to be KEPT a secret to keep the protection.

“Those people likely go out and immediately patent, copyright, trademark, etc. any and all unique inventions of their most profitable resource.”

Actually they’d have to know how it works in order to patent it. Part of the patent process is describing, in excruciating detail, how the invention works in a way that other people WOULD be able to duplicate the process, so that when the patent runs out, others will be able to do just that.

“If that doesn’t happen, i think templar has horrible business sense.”

If only there was someone in the comic who has excellent business sense who Alison did not threaten to murder and cause to go into hiding, who isn’t a mass-murdering criminal terrorist. Oh well.

Or she could literally ask even a first year law student who’s taken Intellectual Property and gotten a C in the course.

“For renewable sources in general, i think we can agree that, even if they were to make some money, renewable energy wouldn’t realistically make enough to tempt companies not dedicated to environmental protection.”

Actually I would not agree about that. If something makes money better than an existing idea, there’s a company that will want to market it. Painting corporations as evil Captain Planet villains who pollute the planet for the sake of polluting the planet, rather than for a profit motive is just two-dimensional and unrealistic thinking. They want a profit, and currently most renewable energy sources other than shale/fracking for natural gas and nuclear are NOT profitable – they’re inefficient money pits. Once someone makes it profitable to make a car that works ENTIRELY on water, or a non-hybrid car (hybrid cars actually contribute the same amount of pollution, just in their construction rather than the active use of the car – big thing on Adam Ruins Everything about that that simplifies the concept actually and it wasnt too terribly done), a company will produce and market it. But it has to be dependent on a profit motive. People are, for the most part, greedy. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad, but greed is a great motivator to make the world a better place. If it’s more profitable to create dirty energy, they will create dirty energy and spend money on PR to deal with that. If it’s more profitable to create clean energy, they will create clean energy. And she made the motorcycle already, which is clearly out there. She could just release schematics on some sort of improvement on the internet, then by the time Templar wants to do anything about it, they can’t. They can try to sue, but they’d have no standing anyway since they didn’t patent it. Is Templar going to try to attack Paladin over it legally? Hey… Alison likes throwing her weight around, maybe she should throw it around then against Templar. Or … you know…. get Patrick to stop them from doing what they’re doing. If you’re going to use violence on someone, starting with the person who literally murders thousands of people is a better idea than using it on one person who has never physically harmed another human being.

“Those companies are only interested in making the most money at all possible,”

This is correct. So make green energy profitable, which is what Paladin should be focusing ALL her time on instead of robots that beat themselves up after telling stupid jokes.

“since it required relatively little in terms of refinement before sale.”

Um… actually oil does require quite a bit of refinement (as well as transportation, both of which can be environmentally unfriendly, hence all that hubbaballoo about the pipelines).

“Also one prime example of major companies not only forgoing competition, but practically helping each other to gain effective monopolies, are internet companies.”

Actually I’ve worked on cases involving Sherman anti-trust specifically dealing with breakups of the telecom companies and gun-jumping attempts at mergers which the SEC prevents because of the danger of monopolies. Internet providers don’t work with each other beyond what the government forces them to do, actually. It’s very long and complicated though, and it would be a real snoozefest if I started explaining how it works on a webcomic forum. Unless you mean ‘internet companies’ like Facebook and Youtube and Twitter. But even those are not too big to fail. MySpace probably thought it was too big to fail before Facebook knocked them off. Youtube has competitors that might fill the void in the wake of Google losing almost a billion dollars in advertisers, who might wind up going to other internet streaming options for original content like Minds.com, Vid.Me, and Dailymotion.

“You can find the details yourself, but there’s almost no competition, and therefore they don’t need to improve,”

Wait a few years and see where Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are then. They’re already losing a LOT of money and becoming very unprofitable (well, Facebook still is profitable but the other two are money losers, largely because there’s not enough people competing, and as they lose their niche, other companies form to pick up the slack. Don’t forget, MySpace was around before Facebook, and now MySpace is a dud. RealNetwork was around before MP3s and MPEG4s,, and now no one ever uses .rm files.

“but they will certainly try anything they can to stop smaller internet startups from gaining a foothold,”

They can try. They won’t be able to for long, especially on something like the internet UNLESS the government gets involved and starts picking winners and losers. ie, socialism.

“Lastly, because i want to hear your response, what i was talking about “too big to fail” is that, primarily, when the banks crashed in 2008, the government, which had beforehand been leaving the banks mostly to themselves, had to step in and bail them out,”

Stupid, stupid mistake of the government. They should never have bailed out the banks OR Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae. They should have let them fail, and just used the FDIC to make sure the small investors didnt lose all their money, since the banks ARE FDIC insured anyway, and that’s the point of FDIC insured accounts. There was NO reason to bail out the banks, other than that the banks were being forced to give home loans to people who clearly were not going to be able to pay the loans back, which caused the housing market to collapse. Thanks, again, to government stepping in and picking winners and losers as if they had any clue of what to do.

“because the banks put themselves in the position of nearly going bankrupt through bad practices.”
Actually the banks were partially told they had to give out the loans, and partially given HUGE incentives by the government to give out the loans. They didn’t think ‘hey…. we’re going to give out loans to people who can’t pay us back so we can foreclose on their homes.’ Banks do not want to foreclose on homes. It’s a waste of their time and money and they ALWAYS lose money doing that. They’d rather just not lend out money to someone unless they can get paid back with interest in the first place. But even so, they shouldn’t have been bailed out. It wasn’t even logical how the government chose which banks they would and would not bail out. Washington Mutual? Not bailed out and gets bought by Chase. Citibank, Bank of America? Bail em out! Literally made no sense.

No business is too big to fail if you keep to the principles of a free market. It’s only when you start getting socialist and have the government place themselves in the private sector that businesses become ‘too big to fail’ because the government doesn’t care about a profit motive. They just print up more money if they are losing money, and the economy spirals into the toilet.

Not sure how I got here from wanting Alison to break Paladins arm if she doesn’t create green energy, but here we are.

(PS: I just realized I used a term of art that most people wouldn’t understand – when I was saying ‘gun-jumping’ it’s a legal and business term that means that, when two companies are going to merge, they started acting like they’re one company BEFORE the SEC can make sure they would not be an unlawful monopoly – most monopolies – with very few exceptions – are illegal because of laws like Sherman Anti-Trust act)

Thewizardguy

Izo seems to make several assumptions.

1) This energy technology is sufficiently simple that non-supered people have a chance at making it without ridiculous costs.

2) The technology produces energy in sufficient amounts that it can feasibly be utilized on a mass scale.

3) The materials or other production costs for this device allow for feasible mass production.

4) There is no other downside to the use of this power source which has not yet been explained to any capacity within this universe.

5) Paladin isn’t already doing everything within her power to make this technology available to the masses.

TLDR: Wait for the comic to explain before jumping at every half-chance to hate on Allison.

Virgil Clemens

Izo also seems to be making the assumption that Alison’s treatment of Max is fundamentally worse than her prior behavior/morality. Izo has certainly been straw manning utilitarianism.

Izo

Does no one here know what strawmanning means? 🙂

Also, Alison’s treatement of Max IS fundamentally worse than her prior behavior and morality.

Ellis Jones

Can you, like, source any of the things you’re saying? Specifically of banks being left alone prior to 2008. Community Reinvestment Act?

Can you also explain exactly why renewables wouldn’t be picked up if they were as profitable as ordinary energy sources?

You know companies aren’t constrained to profiting from one market anyway, right? Why wouldn’t *they* invest in this amazing market that all the startups are exploiting if it was so threatening to them?

Arkone Axon

“Regarding anyone building the bike, you make it sound like someone can find all the pieces they need at their local city dump.”

TONY STARK DID IT! IN A CAVE! OUT OF JUNK!

Stormy9

DIvesting from fossil fuels is closer to 100billion dollar project, 25million isn’t going to go far. It would be nice if the only thing needed to combat Big oil was a magical set of green energy corporations which were so much more efficient and productive they blew fossil fuels out of the water (preferable literally) sadly, the US government is heavily influenced by lobbyist which heavily influences the rest of theworld via our monopoly on the IMF, the world bank and the UN + anti green energy, pro corporation policies that were solidified during the green revolution. The likelihood of those perfect companies springing up in a timely manner is shrinking. Climate change is not going to wait around for capitalism to finally choose the perfect time to invest in green energy. The fact is that the market is too slow and climate change is too fast. But you are welcome to break some arms if it makes you feel better.

She has…. TONS. The R&D is already done. The schematics exist. Put it on the internet. Open source that sh** to everyone. That costs nothing.

Also, I call BS that it’s a 100 billion dollar project. Where did you pull that number from?

“It would be nice if the only thing needed to combat Big oil was a magical set of green energy corporations which were so much more efficient and productive they blew fossil fuels out of the water”

Again, you seem to be not only glossing over the obvious, but taking a running leap in the opposite direction with blinders on. She already made the engine. It’s available if she just puts it out there.

“the US government is heavily influenced by lobbyist which heavily influences the rest of the world via our monopoly on the IMF, the world bank and the UN + anti green energy, pro corporation policies that were solidified during the green revolution”

Everything you just said here is word salad gobbledygook. Put. The. Schematics. Out. There. People need to take off the tinfoil hat because there’s no Illuminati society which will be able to keep people from mass producing Lisa’s engine if she’s not interested in making a profit from giving the world renewable green energy, and just wants the world to have it. Just by making it open source and letting everyone see how to do it. Hell, let Big Oil start making green energy Lisa-based vehicles also if they want to. Why would you care? If they’re going to abandon fossil fuels to put their money into greener, renewable technology why should you care who gets rich off it. It’s still better for the planet, right?

News flash.. oil companies and car companies are not, as I’ve said numerous times now, Captain Planet villains, out to destroy Gaia for the evulz. They want to make money. The reason they don’t stop processing fossil fuels and work on green energy is because green energy is less efficient and more expensive than fossil fuels. If it was at least not ONE of those two, it would at least be worth pursuing. You make an engine that runs on water? Every automobile factory will be wanting to make a car that runs on H2O. What will Sunoco do when GM, Ford, Toyota and every other car company is shifting from gas guzzlers to hydro-cell cars that are just as fast but with no pollution? They’re going to shift to building the new engine instead, because it won’t be profitable to do anything else. And that’s how you fight corporations. You make it profitable for them to do what you want them to do.

Seriously, holy crap how you got the IMF, the world bank, the UN in there along with the nebulous ‘anti-green energy’ cartel, whoever they are. People are not against green energy. You might as well put the mole men and the Borg in there at this rate. Most of what you just mentioned have no reason to be against bountiful, clean, cheap, safe, EFFICIENT energy. Except the ‘anti-green cartel’ whoever they may be – probably people shaking their fists saying ‘You’ll pay for this, Captain Planet!’

No, countries and companies are against wrecking their national economies and businesses by moving to inefficient methods of energy production that don’t work a fraction as weill as methods that either cause more pollution or have extreme risk (ie, nuclear). You put out something that doesn’t do that, and works better? Like Lisa can? It’ll change the world. No one seemed to mind glossing over any possible side effects of transplanting biodynamic organs, sped up by an unknown to ANYONE outside of Alison and Max, process. But an already proven prototype? That you have problems with?

“The likelihood of those perfect companies springing up in a timely manner is shrinking.”

Third time boys and girls.

She
Already
Made
The
Engine.
She
Has
TONS.

“Climate change is not going to wait around for capitalism to finally choose the perfect time to invest in green energy”

Well.. technically, Al Gore said the world was going to pretty much end by January 2016 when the ice caps would fully melt and Mt Kilamanjaro would have no snow on it anymore. Which…. sorta didn’t happen. So we have some time. But it doesn’t matter. Lets assume that Climate change IS going to kill us all.

SHE HAS THE ENGINE. Put it out there for everyone to use. You don’t like capitalism? Okay. Give it to every auto and energy company for free, PLUS put it on the internet schematics for others to make it themselves. You put it out there, it will get done. You don’t want to have capitalism? You don’t need to. You can let other people use capitalism to drive them instead. You can be poor and be happy that you forced Lisa to save the world. I’m not seeing a downside to this, aside from if Lisa says no and you have to torture her to make her do what you want. But hey…. we were fine with that for Max. We should be fine with that for Lisa too if she has the selfish gall to say no to saving the world and millions who die each year for something she’s already invented and is just using to get her crush on.

“The fact is that the market is too slow and climate change is too fast.”

I’d start arguing how climate change is NOT fast at all, but I want you to think that in order to make it all the more urgent to force Lisa to put the engine out there for everyone to use. Ahem…

Climate change will kill us all. It’s going to be like the Day after Tomorrow or Waterworld or Dantes Peak meets 2012 times 1000! We need Lisa’s engine to save everyone. Force her by torture, twisting her arms, and if need be, breaking her arm to make her do what is for the greater good. Pretend she’s Max.

juleslt

Having fun battling your strawmen?

Izo

You really need to learn what a strawman is…

Zorae42

“An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”

Saying Alison should/will break the arms of everyone who disagrees with her is a pretty huge misrepresentation of her beliefs/what transpired with Max, which most people would agree is a ridiculous course of action. Seems like a strawman to me.

Learn definitions. I responded initially to Weather and not in a way to dispute anything he said.

Zorae42

“because another person’s normal argument is unable to be sufficiently argued with”

No, it’s because it’s easier to argue against the strawman than the actual argument and then pretend that the strawman you ‘defeated’ was the original argument (when it is not). Your phrasing suggests the fault is with the other person’s argument instead of the strawman’s constructor.

“I responded initially to Weather and not in a way to dispute anything he said.”

No you didn’t dispute anything they said. You just posted yet another unrelated comment that suggests anyone who supports/sympathizes with Alison’s actions towards Max is someone who believes that it’s okay to break the arms of anyone who disagrees with them. Which is, again, a misrepresentation of such people and Alison herself.

Izo

Do you realize that YOU are strawmanning right now in an attempt to pretend that I strawmanned?

Arkone Axon

Considering that Alison’s actions towards Max are in fact “multiple violent felonies punishable by anything up to and including multiple life sentences,” perpetrated by someone whose justification was “this person won’t do what I want after I insulted and treated them like crap,” and that Alison herself admits what she did was a horrible and unforgivable thing that she knows she’s going to be suffering the consequences of down the road… supporting her actions is quite literally saying “it is okay to break the arms of anyone who disagrees with your moral ideology.”

SYMPATHIZING with her actions is another story. There are plenty of people who can understand why she felt how she did. I’m one of them. But to SUPPORT her actions? No. That’s saying “this person doesn’t want to risk themselves for a cause we believe in, so we’re going to denigrate him, dismiss his feelings, mock his concerns, and repeatedly emphasize that he doesn’t deserve pity, compassion, or anything but a kick in the head and a gobbet of spit in the face.”

Zorae42

No supporting her is saying “It is okay to twist the arm of someone who is not willing to take a few hours to do an extremely simple task that will save the lives of thousands and thousands of people and will cost them nothing but their time while having minimal risk to their person.”

Or maybe more simply, “In certain cases, the ends justify the means” given a great enough good and sufficiently small evil and depending on the specific circumstances. Which is not at all the same as “might makes right”.

Yes, it obviously would’ve been preferable to convince him without physically coercing him. And you can support her actions and still feel pity/compassion for Max. He didn’t deserve to have that happen to him. But once she did get to the point where she failed to convince him, I think giving him a sore arm is worth the lives saved (given no complications or ironic/unforeseen consequences arising from it).

Arkone Axon

Except that, as has been pointed out (repeatedly), it wouldn’t be “thousands and thousands,” the number has been drastically overestimated. Just as the risk to Max has been hugely underestimated – especially since Alison proved that the risk was very very real when she did the very thing he was proven very right to fear.

Also, the same thing applies even more so towards Alison. If it’s okay to “twist the arm” (y’know, like how waterboard is just “spraying a little mist on someone’s face”), then is it not okay to “show a fraction of the consideration for someone with a critically important ability that we’d show to a friend?”

That’s what’s being argued here. The double standard.

Zorae42

Quick google says 22 people die in the US alone every day from lack of organ transplants. Thats… 8,000 people a year. I think that qualifies as multiple thousands.

Except she did literally twist his arm; it hurts a lot, but it’s fleeting and non-damaging. Waterboarding is a horrible torture. Don’t be an ass.

Like I said, she could’ve done a better job negotiating. And that would have been way more preferable. And the ‘double standard’ isn’t what’s being argued here. What’s being argued here is Izo’s repeated (and annoying) use of a strawman.

Arkone Axon

Waterboarding IS a horrible torture… that inflicts no physical damage and is entirely fleeting. Don’t be an ass.

Because yes, it IS torture. So is what Alison did. She didn’t just twist his arm, she put him in a joint lock while reminding him that she was a thousand times stronger than he was, invulnerable to any attempts he might make to defend himself, and could easily murder him and get away with it. She didn’t just inflict pain, she inflicted terror in a deliberately cruel fashion to make her victim comply with her demands. Every bit of that is torture, and the fact that you feel her cause justified her actions makes you EXACTLY the same as the idiots at Fox News who insist that waterboarding is a patriotic thing to do. “Our cause is just and therefore it’s not really torture, it’s HEROISM! Don’t be an ass by criticizing!”

(Which is why, while people in the comments section continue to defend her actions, Alison herself regrets them because she knows what she did was evil and wrong)

Also, 8000 people is still less than “thousands and thousands” (which implies a six digit number, i.e. in excess of 100,000 a year), as well as less than the “millions” that others have espoused. It’s also been established by the comic as not being Alison’s true cause. She wanted to get Feral off that table. That wonderful young woman gushing over the bike and the genius who built it for her? Alison’s goal was to create the circumstances that would convince Feral to get off that table of her own free will. FERAL cared about those thousands of people; Alison treated them as a means to an end, an abstract concept. Bringing up the transplant recipients is not quite as bad as denying that Alison’s actions were torture, but it’s still inaccurate.

Zorae42

Nope. Waterboarding has lasting psychological trauma – since you’re inducing a state where the person literally is drowning to death (not threatening death, literally being in the state of dying). It also can cause lung damage, brain damage, and broken bones from the recipients struggling so hard. It’s not at all fleeting and comparing it to a joint lock is honestly insulting to the people who have actually suffered from it.

And school bullies wrestle people to the ground, assert the fact that they’re stronger than their victims, and maliciously taunt/hurt them until they say uncle (or just because). Indian rope burns and purple nurples inflict fleeting pain. Are all of those torture/human rights violations too?

Obviously what Alison did is more serious than Indian rope burns, but it is not on the level of Waterboarding, major forms of torture, or even ‘breaking arms’ that Izo has been repeating. It still wasn’t a ‘good act’ (if taken out of context), but I personally think it was a small enough evil given the amount of lives saved because of it.

Look, I don’t want to get into another argument about whether what she did was right. That’s been discussed to death and is honestly a matter of personal opinion/ethics.

But I think most people can agree that Izo has been purposefully misrepresenting this view point. Which was the whole point of this specific discussion in the first place.

Arkone Axon

“you’re inducing a state where the person feels like they’re drowning to death.”

Oh, like being put in a joint lock by a violent metahuman declaring “I don’t like you, I have no respect or sympathy for you, and if you don’t do what I want I will drown you in the ocean?”

Again, you’re continuing to do EXACTLY the same thing as the waterboard apologists. You’re minimizing the sheer enormity of the torture, refusing to even call it torture (“enhanced interrogation,” anyone?), and insisting it was justified because it was for a good cause.

And no, Izo was not purposefully misrepresenting this view point. Izo got it pretty much spot on. Your continued insistence on emulating the behavior of Dick Cheney by insisting that it wasn’t really torture and it saved lives continues to validate Izo’s stance.

Zorae42

No, a joint lock + threats of violence are nothing like actually experiencing the sensation of drowning that causes organ damage and potentially broken bones. Just like a bully knocking someone to the ground, sitting on them, and giving them purple nurples is also something completely different.

The problem with waterboarding was 1: it is torture (and a nasty one at that), and 2: it wasn’t for a good cause – since most people will say anything to make the torture stop and they were doing it to innocent people. It was horrendous, didn’t work, and was done constantly to a lot of innocent people.

I don’t call what happened to Max torture because I don’t think it’s right to equate it to all the absolutely monstrous things that constitute torture. But I recognize that’s a personal opinion and that, using the exact definition of the word, it counted as torture. Although that definition means Indian rope burns and ‘Uncle’ are also torture but whatever.

But it did save thousands of people. And I personally think that Max’s temporary pain was worth it.

How the heck is it spot on? Izo’s statement was to “Break the arms of anyone who disagrees with you”. That’s nowhere near my stance of “In this instance, the ends justified the means.”

Arkone Axon

“But it did save thousands of people. And I personally think that Max’s temporary pain was worth it.”

And that’s the point. That’s why I’m comparing you to Dick Cheney. Btw, waterboarding is NOT torture… according to Cheney. And according to Trump. And of course they both emphasize that it WORKS! It totally works and the ends justify the means! And the inconvenient details of how it doesn’t work, how it causes far more problems than it might supposedly solve, get glossed over because it was the hard choice that had to be made! As opposed to the easy “Imma just use violence and terror to get my way” choice that everyone else would call it.

Izo has been deliberately exaggerating Alison’s actions… which is a counter to those who have been downplaying the sheer monstrousness of her behavior. As you are doing by ignoring that her actions were undeniably torture (and done by someone who was emphasizing the terror aspects of torture, with how she could do literally whatever she wanted and get away with it), but also insisting that it worked (even though Max is now unavailable for any other positive use of his power. Plus Alison now has powerful enemies who are completely justified in disliking her. Plus I don’t think Feral will be too happy when she finds out what Alison did… or the doctors duped into participating in a hideously unethical procedure… or Lisa, for that matter…).

It’s amazing how many people are completely missing the point of this whole chapter. It’s about how Alison flinched from the observation that her attitude was that of a tyrant, then did horrible, terrible, immoral things for what she believed to be a just cause, then realized that that’s what pretty much EVERY tyrant does… and now she’s going to have to live with the consequences.

Zorae42

“Izo has been deliberately exaggerating Alison’s actions… which is a counter to those who have been downplaying the sheer monstrousness of her behavior.”

Thank you for agreeing Izo was strawmanning, that’s all this thread was about. Even cooler for you to say that because other people had different opinions of how bad Alison’s actions were/how good the outcome of those actions were, she exaggerated actual events.

Izo

Um…. you just strawmanned Arkone now.

Zorae42

Strawman: “an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”

So I didn’t strawman Arkone because 1. I wasn’t doing it to refute their argument, since I agreed with the statement they made. And 2. because I didn’t misrepresent them:

“Izo has been deliberately exaggerating Alison’s actions”

Exaggerate: “represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.”

Misrepresent: “give a false or misleading account of the nature of.”

So they said you intentionally misrepresented the basis of my proposition.

“which is a counter to those who have been downplaying the sheer monstrousness of her behavior.”

And doing it in order to defeat people’s arguments.

In other words, the definition of strawmanning.

Have a nice day.

Arkone Axon

Exaggerating Alison’s actions… you mean by pointing out that what she did was torture? But then again, you’ve made it clear you’re a torture apologist.

Ah yes, my many statements of how waterboarding is awful clearly make me a torture apologist. I think I’d rather be a torture apologist who thinks anything that leaves a lasting effect (which includes waterboarding) is horrible and shouldn’t be practiced, than someone who thinks children should be in jail for human rights violations because they gave someone an Indian rope burn.

She’s been mocking it by misrepresenting it in order to make it seem ridiculous. Again, the definition of strawman.

Arkone Axon

Except that what you are is a torture apologist who thinks that anything that leaves a lasting effect is horrible and shouldn’t be practiced… unless it’s the method used by someone you personally like. Then it’s okay.

(Also, kudos for talking about schoolyard bullying as if that were what Allison did. Downplaying her actions as just harmless kid stuff, classic torture apologist work)

Zorae42

“unless it’s the method used by someone you personally like”

Oh man, did you see a secret comic where Max’s arm was broken/dislocated? Where he became afraid of anyone ever touching him? Him leaving was not “a lasting effect” of the torture, it’s because he didn’t want Alison to try to get him to help her again. If she hadn’t tortured him, he would’ve done the same thing.

“Also, kudos for talking about schoolyard bullying as if that were what Allison did. Downplaying her actions as just harmless kid stuff.”

How dare you downplay the suffering of victims of bullying! How dare you make such ageist statements. Those monsters (or as you call them bullies) inflict torture on other for fun! They don’t even have a cause to claim makes their actions okay. Bullying is not harmless and you are clearly a torture apologist.

(This is fun, I see why you do it now)

Izo

I’m pretty sure elsewhere, I outright state that I’m mocking their position. I guess even that’s too subtle 🙂

Izo

Actually yes, you did. Arkone said I’m forcing a natural consistency between what Alison did to Max and what she should therefore do to Paladin via ‘deliberate exxageration’ … you’re trying, falsely, to claim that I’m falsely stating anything. I’ve falsely stated NOTHING. I’m bringing things to their natural conclusion by showing an extreme example with Paladin, since Alison already DID an extreme example with Max.

Arkone also correctly discerned WHY I’m saying all of this, and the hypocrisy of you and others defending Alison NOT doing anything to Paladin.

You have a nice day too.

Zorae42

If you wanted to ‘force a consistency” then you’d be saying “twist Paladin’s arm”. But you’re not. Because that doesn’t sound as bad as “break Paladin’s arm”. And you want to prove you’re right, so you’re exaggerating (which literally means a false statement) and pretending it’s equivalent.

Which is, how about that, a strawman 😀

Izo

Nope. Alison was threatening to BREAK his arm. She was twisting it because the next step was to break it. She outright said she was going to break it. She also threatened to murder him by dumping him in the middle of the ocean.

Go to the page before. Okay that’s actually threatening to dislocate his shoulder. That’s much better. I guess? Or maybe where she says ‘I’m going to drop you off in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, where you will be free to live the rest of your life unrestrained by society and its obligations.’

Because that’s totally not a death threat. Nope. I’m sure Max can swim back to shore from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. No one ever dies from that.

Also, third panel in YOUR link. ‘Lets do the arm a littme more first, just a sliiiiight pressure’ After showing what she did with less pressure. What do you think comes after twisting with ‘slliiiightly’ more pressure? A back massage?

Zorae42

She didn’t threaten to dislocate his shoulder. She told him that, due to the way she had him pinned, he was going to dislocate his own shoulder by struggling. If I have a gun and tell you not to step in front of it or you’ll get shot, that’s not threatening to shoot you.

“Because that’s totally not a death threat.”

Where did I say she never made that threat? God, do you ever stop misrepresenting people/saying they did things they didn’t? It’s quite tedious to argue with you because of it.

What do you think comes after twisting with ‘slliiiightly’ more pressure?

She didn’t say “slightly more pressure”. She said “do the arm more”. Which simply means, “hurt the arm more”. The ‘slliiiight’ pressure was just adding the same ‘sliiight’ pressure she applied the first time.

If she had applied ‘slightly more pressure’ (which she didn’t nor did she threaten to do), it would’ve sprained the joint. Not dislocated the shoulder, and certainly not broken the arm.

Izo

“She told him that, due to the way she had him pinned, he was going to dislocate his own shoulder by struggling.”

It would be a real shame if you weren’t careful around me while I’m waving this gun around. A fella might get a bullet in the head if they weren’t careful and did what I say. Hey now, don’t run. I might accidentally fire the gun and you might run in the way of the bullet. Good. Now about that money in your pocket. I’d like to have it.

“Where did I say she never made that threat, or that what she said wasn’t a death threat?”

The fact that you keep acting like I’m making up what Alison did. She threatened to break his arm if he did not comply, threatened to murder him by dumping him in the middle of the ocean. This is not a ‘strawman argument’

“If she had applied ‘slightly more pressure’ (which she didn’t nor did she threaten to do), it would’ve sprained the joint. Not dislocated the shoulder, and certainly not broken the arm.”

She did threaten to do that IN YOUR OWN LINK! what the heck Zorae? Do you not read your own link? Panel 3. Bubble 3 of Alison.

Zorae42

Hm, notice how you wrote a big long paragraph with lots of extra words (“shame”, “might”) to make the statement a threat. But in the comic she said “Don’t do that or you’ll hurt yourself”. Notice how that doesn’t sound like a threat, because it isn’t.

“The fact that you keep acting like I’m making up what Alison did. She threatened to break his arm if he did not comply”

Do you…. do you even read your posts? Pretty sure we just established that she never threatened to break his arm. Which is the thing you’ve been spouting over and over again (and in some cases without the ‘threat’ qualifier).

“Do you not read your own link?”

I did, but you appear to not have read my post. Here, I’ll write it again and maybe you’ll read it this time:

She didn’t say “slightly more pressure”. She said “do the arm more”. Which simply means, “hurt the arm more”. The ‘slliiiight’ pressure was just adding the same ‘sliiight’ pressure she applied the first time.

Maybe comics and discussion about them aren’t for you if you have such a hard time reading.

Izo

“”Don’t do that or you’ll hurt yourself”. Notice how that doesn’t sound like a threat, because it isn’t.”

Pretty sure that IS a threat if the ‘don’t do that’ refers to ‘Don’t try to get away from me while i’m painfully hurting you.’

Are you serious? Sorry Zorae, but as in our past ‘conversations,’ your view of things seems sort of warped.

“Pretty sure we just established that she never threatened to break his arm.”

Pretty sure I read my posts better than you do. Yes she has. Multiple times. Implication while causing him pain that it will get worse than just pain – the next step is injury, then death. Try to read some stuff in context for a change.

“She didn’t say “slightly more pressure”. She said “do the arm more”. Which simply means, “hurt the arm more”. The ‘slliiiight’ pressure was just adding the same ‘sliiight’ pressure she applied the first time.”

Annnd how much ‘more pain’ will the superhumanly strong woman give the NON-superhumanly strong man before ‘pain’ becomes ‘injury?’ I’m curious about the imaginary chart in your head that you use.

Btw, congratulations on trying to bring this whole thread off on a tangent from how Alison should torture Paladin to force her to give clean energy to the world, by getting into minutiae about when ‘pain’ becomes ‘injury.’ How about torture. Can we use the word torture? Alison! Torture Paladin!

In fact I’m going to repost one of Arkone’s posts since you seemed to be too timid to refute that (and since Arkone very accurately understands the point of my posts).

: Paladin literally just mentioned (casually) how she’s got cheap, clean energy powering that motorcycle. Not to mention that all her robots, and even her suit of powered armor, need SOMETHING to keep them going. And they aren’t exactly spewing up clouds of smoke from their internal combustion engines.

2: The point Izo’s been trying to make is that Paladin could just dismiss whatever happens to her in the future and make all her inventions open source. Even though it would mean possibly being sued to oblivion. But that’s just a minor threat and Paladin’s silly for being afraid of that, and anyway she’s not really afraid because when she explicitly mentioned it she was clearly lying. So she’s being a selfish jerk for not wanting to use her powers to save the world and help countless people, and so Alison should give her a little arm twist until Paladin agrees to do this base level, decent, no-brainer request. And then maybe show up later to offer to do something to make up for the non-torture of this selfish jerk who doesn’t deserve any pity whatsoever.

3: She’s a genius who could build a gambling robot and have it start doing internet trading. And everything she DOES patent Templar has “first rights” to buy up (and for extremely generous amounts of money, which is why Paladin can’t find a judge who’ll agree that the contract is unfair). Which means any time she sees her bank account drop below seven digits, all she has to do is quickly whip up another robotic toy for children or something, and Templar will snatch it right up. (Their standing policy is to buy ALL her patents… she can always make a point of patenting non-essential luxury items with limited military application).

Arkone Axon

Oh no! You copied my texts without explicit permission! I should totally sue you for millions and billions of dollars! And then collect because the judge won’t possibly throw it out of court and I won’t have exposed myself to a countersuit! Rah rah, and further immature rantings! Rah! :p

(Teasing aside, thank you for speaking so highly of my arguments. Unlike some people, I value the expert’s opinion – and it’s nice when the expert points at you and says, “the amateur’s right.” 🙂 )

Zorae42

“Pretty sure that IS a threat if the ‘don’t do that’ refers to ‘Don’t try to get away from me while i’m painfully hurting you.'”

Not really? If I tell someone “don’t try to force your way out of those handcuffs or you’ll hurt your wrists”, I’m not threatening to break their wrists. And those exact words. None of your bs word twisting “It’d be a shame if you tried to escape, you might get hurt” or “if you try to get away it’ll be painful for you”.

Maybe if she had said, “Keep struggling, you’ll dislocate you’re shoulder” it could be construed as a threat but she didn’t.

“Yes she has. Multiple times. ”

And yet she hasn’t. Ever. She didn’t before, as that was not a threat. Nor was it about a ‘broken arm’. And she didn’t after, as “more pain” isn’t ‘breaking your arm’. I mean, a broken arm would be more painful, but that’s a leap you’ve made and not one that’s been stated.

Annnd how much ‘more pain’ will the superhumanly strong woman give the NON-superhumanly strong man before ‘pain’ becomes ‘injury?’

????? Putting someone in a joint lock multiple times without ever putting enough pressure to cause injury doesn’t magically cause injury. Well, maybe if you did it like 100 times or something it might eventually cause a strain.

“How about torture. Can we use the word torture? Alison! Torture Paladin!”

Sure. Go ahead. At least that couldn’t be considered a strawman like your other statement was. I’m not sure why you didn’t go straight for it honestly. I mean, it’s something that actually happened and sounds a lot worse than “arm breaking”. I guess it wouldn’t sound so mocking though. Probably for those exact reasons. But then at least you couldn’t be called out on setting up strawmen because there are a whole bunch of people that don’t agree with you. Not that the number of people who disagree have any impact on whether something is right or wrong, it just helps illustrate why you might be so upset/irritated.

“Congratulations on trying to bring this whole thread off on a tangent”

You know, the original thread was about how the bike specs sounded strange. You’re the one who brought it off on a tangent 😛

I already responded to that post. Not going to bother again. I don’t even want to get into you pot calling the kettle black when you said “sidestep answering”.

Izo

Blah blah blah, strawman strawman strawman, call Izo a strawman without understanding what strawmanning is despite an entire discussion on what strawmanning is, then don’t want to get back to the actual point of the thread because it’s too difficult and much easier to keep shouting strawman. Which is strawmanning 🙂

Arkone Axon

Your logic is so tortured here that I can’t help but wonder what would happen if you got involved in an altercation with the police. Or for that matter any sort of violent individual. I can see you either getting dragged into the back of the squad car while screaming at the injustice, or getting stabbed or shot by someone who disagrees about your “totally nonthreatening behavior.”

I mean… for crying out loud… there’s really nothing more to say about that, except to emphasize: you are a torture apologist.

Zorae42

Resorting to ad hominem attacks now? That’s neat.

I guess I’m done talking to you now if all you’re going to do is call me a name and say that’s all you need to do.

Arkone Axon

That’s not name calling, that’s stating a fact. Like calling Cleaver a convicted felon or Patrick a mind reading supervillain, or calling Alison someone who used torture to achieve her goals.

(also, regarding your other post? Alison has since admitted that she had other options. She simply failed to consider them because she was too quick to rush to the easy solution of “violence and intimidation”)

Izo

I’m just fascinated that Zorae has twisted herself into now defending waterboarding, as if he was W and Cheney’s best friend. 🙂

Zorae42

You’re cute. Considering my post started off indicating how Waterboarding does have lasting effects and mentioning how awful it was.

And then my next post (that was here before yours so you definitely had the ability to read it) I literally listed why waterboarding was a bad thing.

Arkone Axon

No, you’re defending waterboarding. Or to be more precise, you’re defending the exact method of “enhanced interrogation” that you want to justify being used as “totally different, not torture at all, don’t be insulting!”

Especially since Alison’s methods bear so much more in common with waterboarding than the fact that the threat of drowning was involved.

Restraint: A key component of torture is the inability to escape the torment. You have to be held down or otherwise restrained to be subjected to physical torture.

Helplessness: The emphasis of “you have no control here. You are powerless. Your only options are to do what I want, or you will suffer until I get what I want. But you WILL do what I want, and your only choice is how much you want to suffer.”

Terror: To quote a book by Lois Bujold, pain is not the point. Terror is. Physical pain is simply a tool used to achieve the terror. This is why waterboarding leads to lasting psychological trauma – because the victim is powerless and in the clutches of someone who can do literally whatever they want. The victim is reduced to the level of a child in the hands of an abusive adult.

So congratulations – you’re a torture apologist! You’ve defended the use of torture by the character you like against the character you don’t! You’ve dismissed the suffering of the victim as inconsequential! And, just like your BFF Dick Cheney, you’ve emphasized how it was for a good cause and that makes it okay! So… own it. Either accept that you’re a torture apologist, or acknowledge the same truth that Alison herself did – that what she did was horrible, evil, and something she is going to be suffering consequences for having done.

Zorae42

So you want to jail every child bully for human rights violations? Since bullies inflict all of those elements too.

Ooh ooh, and all of our police officers! A joint lock hold is pretty common practice for them. And they inflict all of those elements too!

Fun fact: Alison said she’d do it again.

Arkone Axon

You keep bringing up child bullies as if anyone other than you had mentioned them, you torture apologist.

And police officers are permitted to use joint lock holds when restraining physically violent suspects who are resisting arrest. They are permitted to use them until they have applied the handcuffs to restrain them so that they can then be transported to prison. At no point are police officers permitted to use joint locks to torture people into performing activities against their will.

Fun fact: Alison then admitted that she did it because she had never been taught a method of dealing with people that didn’t involve physical violence. Which is why she admits how scummy and vile her actions were, you torture apologist.

Zorae42

And you’re the one who dismissed them. But apparently it’s okay to not call what they do torture because you said so. Even though it meets all the requirements of being torture. If you don’t want them dragged off to jail, then that makes you a torture apologist.

Or just people they think might be violent. Or people that didn’t do anything wrong are upset about being arrested (without being violent about it, just you know, upset). Or, lets be honest here, minorities who are being “subdued” in places where the police are racist.

Oh my gosh. It’s almost like I said it would’ve been preferable if she could’ve talked him into it without needing to resort to violence. But when violence was the only option left to her, I was okay with her taking that option even though it was an evil act. Which is the same thing she said. I guess she’s a torture apologist too then.

Izo

Somehow I think that if Alison waterboarded Max, you’d have been all for it 🙂

Izo

An estimated 12.6 million deaths are attributable each year to unhealthy environmental factors – directly associated with lack of energy and air pollution.

Here. World Health Organization. Paladin apparently wants millions to die each year because it’s more important that she doesn’t get sued over a lawsuit that she’d win easily even if Templar dared to sue her and risk angering the superhuman arm-breaker who is her partner.

I-it’s not like I-I was thinking of you the entire time or anything, Feral-sempai.

RobNiner ♫

*flounces off, smacks into wall*

zellgato

Gosh damn. She does not screw around on the “i like you please consider me” gifts…
haha. that face she made at the end “aahhh der shoo cquuuuuteeeee” while trying not to show it.

Also I seei it skipped over the “feral snap crackle pop regen” moment haha. Well not entirely i mean there was a “regen crack” in the first panel, but she’d already landed and headed over while healin’

Mitchell Lord

She did a superhero landing. She took it on her knees.

juleslt

“dual mounted m16 automatic machine guns”??? :-O
Are we back in a standard superworld where you consider just gunning down mooks and it’s all right??

Abel Undercity

It’s plausible that the presence of superhumans has led to even looser gun laws in America than there are now. Which, I might add, is a terrifying thought.

Syncline

When was the last time you heard about someone being gunned down with a legally-owned full automatic weapon? Answer: Never. It’s happened only twice in 80 years, so full auto weapons are still legal in this country if you are fit to own them and pay the $200 fee. I imagine gun ownership isn’t a big deal in a world with super-powered crooks punching holes in walls. In the real world however, things are far worse.
Out on the streets of OUR United States, police are far more likely to shoot you in any confrontation than a _legal_ gun owner. If you are Black, your chances are even worse. Given Lisa’s skin color, I’m sure she knows that quite, quite well.
2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (NOT killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you
are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by one of our 770 thousand policemen than by any of the United States’ 80 million armed citizens. The statistics are maintained by the FBI every year and are there for anyone who wants to see them. When you consider that citizens
shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every
year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen.
How wonderful for those of us not living in cartoon land.

Tylikcat

Better, that this is Lisa’s idea of a courting gift, and that she totally has Tara’s number.

Walter

It beats making robots for her. They’d just tell jokes and destroy themselves.

Walter

There are guys like Cleaver around, where bullets would be like slaps. These are probably officially for those kind of circumstances.

Mitchell Lord

Or in case her robots go boom…

Izo

Guess she doeent believe in gun control.

cvar

6 months to a year, a $200 tax stamp and the federal gov’t might as well check your prostate while they’re combing over your life.

Izo

I’m…. relatively certain that fully automatic M16 machine guns would be illegal in every state.

“The machine gun was invented by American Hiram Maxim, and interestingly enough, the USA is one of the few countries on the planet where regular folks can in fact own a fully automatic firearm. In fact, machine guns have never been illegal in the USA on a federal level. They are heavily regulated, but not illegal at all.”

God bless America.

Izo

Hrm. Did some research. Yeah, they’re legal (technically), but some of the most heavily regulated guns in the country. Even in Texas it’s nearly impossible because the registry for full-auto firearms is closed. Not to mention that while you’re right about them not being illegal on a federal level, they are on a state level in MOST states. And somehow I don’t think Alison lives in Texas or, with her social justice stances and hair-trigger temper, she’d be killing or threatening to kill a whole lot more people than she does already.

In any case, I’m VERY certain that it’s illegal to mount a fully automatic machine gun on a MOTORCYCLE. We’re not quite at Mad Max world yet.

It’s even illegal to own a tank unless the guns and turrets have been disabled, as well as the firing controls. And even then, you can’t drive it on most public roads. So…. motorcycle? Not a chance.

Some guy

It’s actually not illegal to own a fully functional tank with cannon in the US, it’s merely difficult to pull off.

The cannon counts as a ‘destructive device’, which comes with a $200 fee and the BATFE spending 9 months staring at their navels before acting on it. This covers legally transferring an active canon or more likely reactivating the deactivated one.

There’s little reason to disallow the functioning cannon as procuring ammunition for it is going to be a grand lesson in frustration. It’s technically legal to buy even explosive shells, but you have to abide by safe storage regulations that include having a vault-style magazine to store them in. All of which is largely moot as while it’s legal for you to buy them, you won’t find anyone to sell them to you. I’m not kidding about this part, it’s legal because it’s (in all practicality) impossible. What your left with is a cannon you can at best make your own ammunition for, which is again entirely legal, but enough of a hassle that it might as well not be.

You’re also not entirely correct about it being illegal to mount a gun to a vehicle. The places where it is illegal generally banned it due to hunting regulations more than anything. The places where it’s legal to do so haven’t had sufficient reason to ban the practice, given that you don’t really see armed up vehicles in public very often.

BryanP1968

You forgot the ridiculous price of the guns themselves. Thanks to a last minute amendment introduced to FOPA 1986, no more full auto weapons legal for civilian ownership have been or can be registered since then. The result is continuously rising prices. These days, civilian-legal machine guns sell for prices that range from “Quality used car” to “I could buy a house for that!”

Moi

If they’re supers, yes. As Alison said, “If that guy I killed had laser-eyes, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

Zac Caslar

Also seriously, the M16?

The M16’s a dog without constant maintenance and is nothing I’d fire at anything tougher than a human as anything but a prank. You want 7.62 at least; off the top of my head I’d look at a PKM. Good old Russian designs engineered around heavy lead and minimal field servicing.

Really fire stability would be paramount. If you’re going to spray out that much lead god help you if you want to hit the target. Factoring in surface vibration on top of recoil? Bleh.

Better yet, engineer in a dedicated VI and use a slower firing weapon. Less .50BMG right on target > lots of 5.56 bullet fragments going every damn way. That means servos and an auto-aiming system. That means forward sensors and maybe some kind of interface (low intensity lasers that point at the driver’s eyes and track pupil movement when the handles are squeezed frex).

given the author’s and the comic’s bent its a bit much to expect them to have much of a clue about real firearms. personally i’d just say dual .50 cal case-less machine guns- that gets the point across and also sounds semi plausible. why would Lisa not make her own firing system? (though where one gets that kind of ammo is a good question… reloads are out.).

and I’ll pile on on the technobabble on the engine. Dodge as a stunt put the viper engine… in a motorcycle. twice. (crotch rocket indeed!) a v 6 would be a bit more sane but still would be HUGE. the nice thing is it would be a lot quieter than a normal cycle. so Fearl can sneak up on the targets before well… cutting them up a bit.

Zac Caslar

Oh, indeed. Mostly just using the opportunity to have a techno-cackle about what could be designed.
As for ammo since you have a fuel cell you put the mags for the guns under the seat where the gas tank would be.
Have the belts feed directly to the weapons, make sure you’ve got shrouds to keep crap like dust, rain etc out of the belts and voila! Probably be pretty straightforward and elegant.

Husband-wife pulp writing team James Macdonald and Debra Doyle frequently give the advice that, whenever describing a firearm, you ALWAYS call it “modified” or “customized”. Because no matter how good you are at guns, you’re going to get a detail wrong and a gun enthusiast is going to tell you so. But, no matter how LITTLE you know about guns, you can say “modified” or “customized”, and you’re off the hook.

“Dual-mounted fully automatic modified/customized M16s”, and you’ve solved all the problems you’ve said. Paladin stabilized the firing platform, changed the caliber, whatever you want in your own mind to make it better.

21stCenturyPeon

Question: does Lisa have a variety of prostheses to match the different heel-heights of her shoes, or did she build a left leg that automatically adjusts itself to match Righty?

zopponde

I thought Lisa was complaining earlier about needing to build a new one with a better fit? It’s been long enough since then that she could have built a new one, but if it wasn’t something she could do as soon as she noticed a problem then she probably only has one. (Not sure why it couldn’t be adjustable, though….)

Mitchell Lord

…She just swaps out a foot part, and makes it modular. It works great, and since she isn’t supering, the fact that itt makes it SLIGHTLY easier for her foot to pop off isn’t an issue.

That? Or she just has he prosethetic leg stand on tippy toe, or be expandable.

Moi

Also, is there a socket on the left-hand side of the bike for her to put the prosthetic into? A standard peg would be tricky to manage without a heel…

Dean

“I just remembered that,” she said, fooling no-one.

Gruhl

Did you intend for her technobabble to be nonsense? Either way, I read it like simply turned off her brain as soon as Feral got close, in a cute way. 🙂 (A V twin always have two cylinders, with six cylinders it’s a V 6)

HanoverFist

Yep, plus why does it need an internal combustion engine at all if it has a fuel cell? and the M16 is an assault rifle, not a machine gun.

Some guy

An M16 is both a machinegun in that it’s fully automatic, and an assault rifle in that it fires an intermediate cartridge while fully automatic. That part isn’t nonsense, but it is unnecessarily redundant.

It’s also a crummy choice to mount on a vehicle unless it’s removable.

HanoverFist

Being capable of full-automatic fire does not necessarily make a weapon a machine gun
( except in american legal parlance). The term designates a specific tactical role.
A true machine gun is a suppression weapon designed for extended automatic fire from a bipod, tripod or vehicle mount whereas an assault rifle is a shoulder-fired weapon designed for short bursts of auto only.

Feral, you are one of the good gals. You are not allowed to kill to get stuff.

Fully automatic M16 machine guns? Feral, you would kill with this bike!

Tylikcat

I think it’s pretty well established that people get killed in this universe.

Arkone Axon

I’m suddenly thinking of a Batman TAS episode making fun of his darker incarnations, where Batman mows down a horde of bad guys with machine guns mounted on his tank-like Batmobile. And then breaks the fourth wall to declare:

“Rubber bullets. Honest.”

Izo

Frank Miller’s Batman maybe 🙂

Izo

“Feral, you are one of the good gals. You are not allowed to kill to get stuff.”

Alison would disagree with your assessment.

Kifre

MMHMMM. MHMM LISA. Tell me more about how you “just happened” to make that.

Izo

I’m sure it was a total coincidence. They both just happen to like stars that look exactly the same. *halo*

Walter

It’s super convenient that she just remembered that the symbol she put on her bike is also the symbol of this girl who was so friendly with her last time they met. I think they are gonna be chums!

Rugains Fleuridor

like, reeeeeal good chums

Walter

Yeah. They will be best friends, probably have a lot of sleepovers.

Merle

Purely platonic pals.

Lostman

Really, really close friends. Some would say with benefits.

Stephanie

just gals being pals

Philip Bourque

How much of this bike is legal?

Steele

Uhm, the wheels… maybe?

Seer of Trope

Make those spiked and we have Samurai Jack here.

Izo

0.0 percent.

Pol Subanajouy

“Oh yeah, totally, forgot that was your logo. Totally on purpose.”

Izo

And with that bike you could definitely kill, Feral. Twin fully automatic machine guns after all.

Walter

You couldn’t definitely kill Feral with that bike. She’d just regenerate.

Izo

Note the comma placement 🙂 Unless that was a joke and I totally missed it.

Affenschmidt

Ah, I see someone’s already pointed out that the “twin” part of “V-twin” refers to the number of cylinders…(yes, I’m piling on. It’s only a two-person pile so far, though, so it’s not all that bad.)

Mouser

Lisa’s version of a mix tape.

Zorae42

How will Lisa get home if she gives the bike she rode in on to Feral?

Will Feral have to give her a lift home? Meaning Lisa will get to hold on tight to her and also let Feral know where she lives? 😀

Walter

Alison : “I could fly y-”
Both : “No”

palmvos

you clever person…. you have penetrated the secret plan… may you shake for joy.

Weatherheight

Tara could offer to let Lisa hang out at Tara’s place until they resolve this thorny problem…

Just saying.

Marc Forrester

Fuel cell plus six cylinder engine is a confusing combination. Is this thing electric or a gas burner?

cphoenix

Electric has high torque at low speed. Gas has high power at high speed. Win/win.

palmvos

just need that custom made frame from that timelord…..

LitShips

“Electric has high torque at low speed. Gas has high power at high speed. Win/win.”

Umm… WHAT? As the owner of both a Tesla Model S and a Zero SR e-cycle, I can tell you from personal experience that electric powered vehicles have awesome power to torque ratios at all speeds. The only limitation electric has is distance, which I’m sure a genius like Paladin is very quick to overcome.

cphoenix

What I should have said is “Gas has range and is cheap. Electric has high torque at low speed even with a low-capacity electric system. Win-win.”

I was thinking of the Prius (owned a first-gen, drove it 310,000 miles, gave it away last year, still miss it).

I expect you know this, but for others reading:

One way to overcome the distance limitation is to put in gas. Once you put in gas, you can use mainly the gas at high speeds, and put in just enough electric to help out the gas motor with torque at low speeds and with efficiency at medium and high speeds (something about how there are certain sweet spots in the gas motor’s range because they tuned it that way because they could because they had electric).

So, yes, if you have enough batteries, wires, and motors to deliver the power that you need to go all-electric, you get good torque at any speed. That takes a lot of money. It’s not just the number of batteries – both going fast and accelerating at high speed take more power, which means thicker wires and more powerful motor.

If you have lots of money in 2017 you can get a high-performance all-electric car. If you have some money in 2001 you can get a hybrid that’s nicely peppy at low speeds.

LitShips

Yeah, that makes more sense. You can’t really do a cross-country road trip in an electric vehicle. I tried it once with my Tesla (235 mile range), and it calculated to being over a week to get to the other side of America. I said forget it after two and a half days of driving, stopping to charge, driving, stopping to charge… Et cetera. I had a Prius also, and there’s a lot to be said for combining gas and electric so that you can increase driving longevity and decrease carbon footprint.

Marc Forrester

According to the following strip it has an alternator too, so I guess the engine’s just there to recharge the ultracapacitors or whatever. And to make some sweet noise, obviously.

Remember kids, when you don’t know how to woo someone, just get them a motorbike.

walterw

*neodymium

(and yes, hee hee awesome! i totally missed the subtext of the “v-twin/6 cylinder” thing and thought it was an error on the writer’s part; thank god for the comments steering me to re-read a little, saved me from mansplaining down here and coming off like an idiot.)

Weatherheight

I just realized that Lisa is two generations ahead of Star Trek when it comes to number-lithium materials. Given that trilithium is a nuclear reaction inhibitor and trilithium resin is a bit kaboomy….

Maybe sitting on that bike is a shade risky…

Zorae42

Maybe there’s just five lithium batteries all jammed into one fuel cell… Yeah, that still doesn’t sound safe

The M16(the M is capitalized) is an assault rifle, not a machine gun, as it fires the 5.56×45 NATO round, an intermediate cartridge, and is select fire. Machine guns fire a full sized cartridge, like the 7.62×51 NATO, which is used by the M60 and the M240/ FN MAG, which are actual machine guns.

Izo

I’m not all that gun knowledgeable but I was under the impression that ‘assault rifles’ were basically a made up term until it was codified in the law in 1994 (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban). And I believe the M16 was around a fair deal before 1994. Like… decades before. Before that, weapons that were eventually called ‘assault rifles’ were not ever called ‘assault rifles’ – it was just a general all-purpose term made up by some people in Congress (who were even less gun-knowledgable than me, which is significant) for any automatic or semi-automatic weapon, which includes a LOT of weapons that aren’t immediately conjured up in the imagination when someone says ‘assault rifle’ – usually people think it means ‘Call of duty burst fire machine gun weapons.’

Again – not an expert on firearms.

Ethan Worner

It was actually a term invented by Hitler, as he decided to call the MP-44 Sturmgewher, or storm/assault rifle, renaming it the STG-44. Assault Weapons, however, was created by that bill, and has a very vague definition.

About

SFP follows the adventures of a young middle-class American with super-strength, invincibility and an overwhelming sense of social injustice.